They are not removing Oracle's Java, they are disabling the 1.6 browser plugin due to numerous unpatched security issues. 1.7 is OpenJDK, and isn't affected by this at all (having never had a 1.7 browser plugin to affect)

Yes, the browser-side java situation on Linux continues to be FUBAR'd as usual, but it'd sure be nice if people didn't go hysterical and ballistic over deliberately misleading click-bait headlines.

In the near future (exact date TBD), Canonical will remove all Sun JDKpackages from the Partner archive. This will be accomplished by pushingempty packages to the archive, so that the Sun JDK will be removed from allusers machines when they do a software update. Users of these packages whohave not migrated to an alternative solution will experience failures afterthe package updates have removed Oracle Java from the system.

so they are talking about removing everything from the sun sdk from users machines as an update, and they are not talking about a nice warning explaining the issue to the user, and providing a working solutions, they are talking about replacing the packages with empty packages.So for people that don't hate applets or webstart, and want to provide their software in that way, this is hardly a non-issue.

The alternative iced-tea as a browser plugin, sucks really bad, their webstart implementation is horrible, and it has problems running lwjgl applets, and telling a user to download the jre from oracle and install it manually, is so not friendly. You get a jre working, but it isn't configured anywhere on the system, so you have to mess with update-alternatives and getting your window manager to recognize java as a way to run apps, a huge pain in the ass all around.

I downloaded the .deb package straight from the java website and installed it that way. OpenJDK blows for numerous reason, but the #1 reason why I got rid of it was because of the keyPressed and keyReleased glitch. If Canonical removed Sun Java from my machine, I'll be pissed, but then again I can just reinstall it... Unless they block it. Then I'll switch to Mint or something.

Who uses Linux anyway? They've been doing user interfaces wrong since forever, and that's not changing.

I used to be a big Linux advocate back in the days, around '98 to '01, founded a Linux association and a Linux solution company that was the official distributor for Red Hat in my country. We introduced Linux into a lot of tech companies that were relying on Windows. I personally, despite of many attempts, never managed to like it on the desktop side. Linux is good for server things, but it's worthless when it comes to desktop usage. I see no difference in state of affairs on the Linux desktop side, how it was over 10 years ago and how it is today, exactly the same situation.

If you wanna play games, you better not have Linux. I see no loss here

I think some people are missing the point that this has nothing to do with Canonical / Ubuntu. Oracle have removed the right for any Linux distribution to package Oracle Java, either 6 or 7! You now have to get it directly from them, and their 'interesting' packaging which means it's no longer a point and click install.

At least for Java 7, OpenJDK is the reference implementation, so it should work fine. But this does mean that people are going to suddenly find that things on 6 no longer work, or even worse that people keep insecure versions of Java 6 on their systems. I fail to see how encouraging insecure Java 6 installations is in Oracle's interest!

I downloaded the .deb package straight from the java website and installed it that way. OpenJDK blows for numerous reason, but the #1 reason why I got rid of it was because of the keyPressed and keyReleased glitch. If Canonical removed Sun Java from my machine, I'll be pissed, but then again I can just reinstall it... Unless they block it. Then I'll switch to Mint or something.

So, where did you find a .deb package??? This would imply there isn't one yet. And if they do do it, I hope they package better than their RPM's used to be.

Incidentally, Canonical will not and cannot remove a manual install of Java from your system. This will only apply to packages distributed by them. Switching to Mint won't help with that, either - I'm on Mint and have already lost applets (have no idea whether that actually bothers me yet! )

In my humble opinion, both Canonical and Oracle did something wrong. Oracle should not prevent Linux distributions to package Oracle Java and Canonical should not provide an "update" which removes Oracle Java but by telling it is an update as it uses a "ghost package". Canonical should just remove the concerned packages from its repository and tells the users to update Java by another way (install OpenJDK or go to Oracle's website).

I often use OpenJDK 1.6, it works just fine, key pressures and releases work in the same way than Oracle Java. There are some problems with high level methods of JavaSound (using low level methods of JavaSound or switching to OpenALSoft solves this problem) and Minecraft works badly with it when combined with some drivers as I already said.

Security should not be used as an excuse to decrease our freedom especially on GNU Linux. As nsigma said, it concerns packages distributed by Canonical. However, I think that lots of non technical users won't understand why a simple update says that Java is up to date whereas Java is removed.

I think that some applications (especially games) are not "GNU Linux ready" anyway, whatever the JVM is used. Don't say that's OpenJDK's fault as expect for the sound, there are a few differences in the handling of mouse events between Oracle Java on Microsoft Windows and Oracle Java on GNU Linux. JOGL 2.0 works fine with OpenJDK, JOAL too.

@gouessej Generally I agree with you, except that I think Canonical are doing the right thing (well only thing they can), and I expect most Linux distros will do the same. Leaving a known security hole is not good practice. Rock, hard place, etc.

@gouessej Generally I agree with you, except that I think Canonical are doing the right thing (well only thing they can), and I expect most Linux distros will do the same. Leaving a known security hole is not good practice. Rock, hard place, etc.

This security hole is overestimated and I don't say that Canonical should have left it, it should have find another way to solve this problem, for example cleanly remove the packets from its repositories and from the machines (instead of installing a ghost packet) and communicate about the urgence of updating Java by switching to OpenJDK with the provided packages or installing the JVM available on Oracle official site. If Canonical had done this, the packages would have been cleanly uninstalled, people concerned by this issue would not believe that there is something wrong with the latest update of Java, they could check that it has been uninstalled and as these packets wouldn't be on Canonical repositories, they would be forced to install OpenJDK or a more recent version of Oracle Java which is the aim of this mess: not leaving a known security hole.

In the near future (exact date TBD), Canonical will remove all Sun JDKpackages from the Partner archive. This will be accomplished by pushingempty packages to the archive, so that the Sun JDK will be removed from allusers machines when they do a software update. Users of these packages whohave not migrated to an alternative solution will experience failures afterthe package updates have removed Oracle Java from the system.

@nsigma, sorry after looking in my dowloads folder, it's a .bin (self extracting) file. It's been a while, and now that I think about it, I did have to link to the .so file in the Chrome plugin directory. But it wasn't anything too tedious = probably why I was thinking now that it was a .deb then... My apologies.

ROFL. If you want to troll this thread you might want a better example. Or shall I bring up Microsoft's track record in shipping "compatible" Java VM's?

@gbeebe - no need to apologize! I was interested to know if Oracle had a .deb link somewhere on their rabbit warren of a website. I've done manual installs enough in the past, but it's not an ideal solution for the casual user who suddenly finds something that doesn't work. And manually setting up /etc/alternatives is a bit more of a PITA.

@gouessej - what you're suggesting is not that far off what's happening from what I understand, just limited by the technical constraints imposed by the package manager.

@gouessej - what you're suggesting is not that far off what's happening from what I understand, just limited by the technical constraints imposed by the package manager.

These are 2 different things. Canonical pushes a ghost package and the final user still sees that Oracle Java is installed whereas it isn't. My suggestion uninstalls Oracle Java cleanly if the user accepts the update and if he tries to check whether Oracle Java is still installed on his machine, he can clearly see that it isn't installed, it allows him to know exactly what is wrong and to try installing it by another way instead of supposing Java itself has a problem. Canonical solution is a lie, proposing an update that explicitly removes Oracle/Sun packages instead of replacing them by empty ones would be far better.

@JL235 I agree with nsigma. Windows is not a champion of backward compatibility, how many APIs have been suddenly discontinued? the joystick API? Silverlight? There are even 4 different ways of retrieving the full path of the desktop in its API since Windows 3.1, none of them works on all Windows, you have to use them all if you want to support all Windows versions.

@gouessej - what you're suggesting is not that far off what's happening from what I understand, just limited by the technical constraints imposed by the package manager.

These are 2 different things. Canonical pushes a ghost package and the final user still sees that Oracle Java is installed whereas it isn't. My suggestion uninstalls Oracle Java cleanly if the user accepts the update and if he tries to check whether Oracle Java is still installed on his machine, he can clearly see that it isn't installed, it allows him to know exactly what is wrong and to try installing it by another way instead of supposing Java itself has a problem. Canonical solution is a lie, proposing an update that explicitly removes Oracle/Sun packages instead of replacing them by empty ones would be far better.

I understand the difference - please note I said "limited by the technical constraints imposed by the package manager." AFAIK, what you're suggesting is not possible using apt/dpkg. No idea whether the same is true for other packaging systems.

Lying to your users by satisfying a package dependency with a broken package is simply as poor as managing a distribution can get. If you can't remove a package with the package manager, then perhaps the proper answer is don't.

But I already know dist-upgrade can substitute one package with another, so if Canonical proceeds with the whole broken package trick, then it not only demonstrates they can't be trusted, it also glaringly points to clear incompetence at managing their own distribution in the first place.

Yar boo sucks to Linux package management. Can't stand the concept. Now at least I see there was some reason for my apparently unreasonable paranoia. Not that I give 2 poos about Oracle Java mind - it seems to not work very well compared to OpenJDK.

And your experience has been Oracle JDK being of lower quality than OpenJDK? That's unique. Should be moot now though, since Oracle JDK 1.7 is OpenJDK 1.7, so at least this clusterf*ck not only has a horizon, it's one we're halfway over as it is.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org